masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:CrimsonFalke
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Talk:Systems Alliance page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Tullis (Talk) 19:52, July 7, 2009 Tank stuff Now, are you just talking WWII, or post war? B/c you were talking about Allied tanks vs German tanks, which only makes sense if you are talking WWII, not post-war, as post war, W Germany was allied w/ the US, Britain and France in NATO, and E Germany w/ the soviets in the Warsaw Pact. As for the points I was making, you brought numbers into it, and numerically the Allies were superior in tanks by '44, and qualitatively by '45 on the part of the US and Britain, and '40 for the Soviets (please see M26 Pershing, T-34, and Iosif Stalin tank). As for post war, the M48 Patton was considered the equal of the Leopard 1, while the M60 Patton was superior, and neither of these can be considered "modified shermans" in any sense of the term. As for the lep2 and the abrams, the US army tested both when it was deciding which to buy, and they determined that the two were comparable in terms of firepower, but the M1 had better mobility (what w/ a turbine engine and all). As for the comment about early brit and french tanks being better than german, evryone (including Heinz Guderian) concluded that tanks like the SOMUA S35, Char B1 and Cruiser Mk II were superior to the Panzer I and II, the Panzer III (which at the time mounted a 37mm gun) and the Panzer IV (which at the time mounted a short-barrel low velocity 75mm). So that, in a nutshell, is the point I was trying to make. SpartHawg948 08:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC) First off i respect you for your rank and service and that you don't think less of me for the wash like other soldiers and when i said modified shermans I ment the overall design was heavily based off the shermans becuase the tank worked will in WW2 and the makers saw it as if it worked once it'll work again not that they were modifed. The thing that made the Panzers better were not the guns but their range and tactics. The Patton series were never ground up designs and the Leo1 was equal to the 48 and 60s only by the first few model lines the M48A3 M60A1 were equals but after the Leo 1 got modified they surpased the M60 pattons and by the time the 60A3s were out the leo 2 was already in production and the M1 needed to be modified to the M1A1 to match the new gun bores and due to the fact we lacked any knowlegde in the smooth bore designs and the only allied tanks that could truely go toe to toe with the tiger 2s, the Centurion came out in 45 as prototypes as for russian tanks other then the T34 and T64 the analysts are paid to worry russian tanks were in reality superior by numbers only as for the M1A2 the Leo2A6 out classes it in everything but production numbers and the fuel economy is off the charts compared to the Abarms that needs at least 4 gallons of gas just to start. I'm only qouting tank crews that used the pattons and the designers :Well, we're gonna have to agree to disagree then, b/c every Army and Marine tanker I have spoken to, as well as the Army and Marine Corps themselves, and all designer's statements I have seen, have stated otherwise. The M48 was as good as the early Lep1, and the M60 was superior. The M60A3 far outstripped the late model Lep1s, regardless of whether the Lep2 was out or not. As for the M1 and Lep2, the guns are nearly identical, the M1 os more flexible in terms of fuel, always a plus (as the M1 can be fueled w/ diesel, kerosene, or any grade of gasoline, whereas the Lep2 can only be fueled w/ diesel), and everyone (US, German, or British- the people who designed it) agree that the M1's Chobham armor w/ DU mesh is far superior to the Lep2's composite steel armor, as demonstrated by the fact that M1s in combat were able to survive multiple close-range hits from the 125mm smoothbores of Iraqi T-72s, as well as the fact that an M1 sabot round was unable to penetrate the armor of another M1, even a t close range and in the thinner side armor. This imcreased freedom of mobility allowed by the multi-fuel engine and the increased survivability allowed by the Chobham armor. Did you look at the links I posted last time? The reason I ask is that both the M26 and the IS-2/3 were able to stand "toe to toe" with the Tiger 2, and both (especially the Pershing) routinely mopped the floor with Tigers.SpartHawg948 17:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)